Bear Creek area discovery of Greenback Cutthroat trout in 2012 suggests responsible, mixed-use conservation model can work, ecology does not always require environmental protectionism and interference
A wild corner of Colorado Springs might be an untold, wise-use, ecological success story about the Centennial State’s fish.
Before headlines in 2020 about the greenback cutthroat trout population loss, there was a big find. This loss happened after their habitat was given added protection and scientists began harvesting their reproductive material for hatchery breeding. Bear Creek was home to some greenback cutthroat trout.
Ten years before the recent discovery of self-sustainable populations in Herman Gulch near greater Breckenridge, a group of Colorado’s state fish was found in a short span of the tributary by Jones Park. In 2015, the greenback cutthroat trout, once considered practically extinct, numbered about 750 in this aquatic habitat along the Bear Creek Trail.
Greenbacks Alongside Greenback Cutthroat Trout
Environmental success in this location is interesting in that there is considerable development in both the northeast and southeast of the area, which is close to High Drive. Campgrounds, businesses, industry, and residences bloom alongside the naturally reproducing population of fish found in the creek. Much of this human industry (which, of course, includes a Chick-Fil-A) is only miles away, as the crow flies.
However, the environmental success in Herman Gulch by biologists, Colorado Parks and Wildlife specialists, and other environmentalists comes after a long-haul, steep-effort endeavor with numerous complications and at least one significant error.
In Bear Creek, the fish were found to be surviving naturally, in a mixed-use, human-activity-friendly environment. However, the instance in Herman Gulch was a deliberate effort to restore nature. That effort contrasts with the wise-use conservation of the area near Bear Creek.
Self-Sustaining Brood of Greenback Cutthroat Trout: Original Recovery of an Endangered Fish?
Was the Oregon chub really the first US fish ever to recover?
In 2015, Smithsonian magazine trumpeted the first Endangered Species Act delisting of a fish: the Oregon chub. The Beaver State’s Department of Fish and Wildlife noted it was the first return of a fish “as the result of population recovery.”
However, Colorado’s state fish has swum in and out of possible extinction since the 1930s. During the federal agency green ramp-ups of the 1960s, it was added to the Endangered Species list in 1967. It’s currently listed as “threatened.”
Despite some discoveries around the American West (including confusion with the Rio Grande cutthroat trout) over the decades, the first big discovery of this Colorado GBCT trout came in 2012 with the Bear Creek population.
Not Native Trout
Interestingly, this type of fish was brought to this spot, near an Arkansas river basin, back in the 1870s by Joseph C. Jones (the namesake of Jones Park). Instead of prospecting at Pikes Peak, he sprang for opening a hotel and other enterprises, bringing with him some non-native fish for the recreational ponds.
In an apparent effort to make money selling recreational fishing, his property business development ended up saving a species of perhaps otherwise extinct fish.
Maybe the Colorado greenback cutthroat trout was a case of a fish being de-endangered.
Wildlife and Environmental Protectionism Narrative
A non-native fish brought across state lines was found later and was quietly acknowledged as a surviving population of the animal. This unforeseen conservation success by Jones could be considered a fluke, and most environmentalists would say as much.
The common narrative in modern environmentalism is a simple binary declaring that human presence, activity, and (most) interference are a default degradation of nature. Even if very minimal, humans still create a fundamentally irreversible disturbance.
Modern environmentalism believes the presence of people destroys otherwise perfect biomes. Industrialization and development of, or on, the natural habitat ruins plant and animal networks that are otherwise harmoniously self-sustaining. If any human exists on any land, then the less interaction those humans have with plants and animals, the better.
Area of These Bear Creek Fish: Paradoxical Habitat of Greenback Cutthroat Trout in Colorado Springs
If human presence is effectively guaranteed harm to the environment, the spot of this greenback cutthroat trout stream near the Bear Creek Nature Center is a paradox. Human presence, buildings, and activity within a short distance show it’s not a quiet and pristine area. And this can’t have changed significantly in only 10 years since the fish were found.
People, Businesses, Houses, and Industries within Five Miles of Bear Creek Nature Center:
- six car dealerships
- a Wal-Mart supercenter
- two RV parks
- a Hobby Lobby
- a petroleum truck supplier
- 14-plus gas stations
- two housing developments plus multiple single-occupancy homes
- over twenty apartment buildings
- Interstate 25
- (really) a small meat processing facility
It’s possible to have human development and direct modification of flora and fauna while sustaining a healthy network of plants, animals, insects and other life forms. Some academic scientists, an extremely eco-friendly demographic overall, are acknowledging that humans have always been interacting with and modifying nature.
But the environmentalist doctrine prohibiting interference by humans is not absolute. It allows people to correct disrupted land and sea. USGS rules for permanent habitat protection say that natural disturbances of land need to be permitted and protected. Or they must have natural event disturbances “mimicked through management (USGS-GAP).” The logical inference of this is that humans can only interfere with nature to restore it. A classic catch-22.
Fish and Wildlife Services Recovery Efforts for the Greenback Cutthroat Trout Populations
CPW, Western Native Trout Initiative, Trout Unlimited and the U.S. Forest Service have worked to help the greenback cutthroats return to Colorado. Biologists and even volunteers have waded into the chilly springtime waters, some of the people with unwieldy scientific instruments. Others have tromped miles into the Poudre River carrying hundreds of hatchery fish for restocking.
The recent Herman Gulch discovery suggests the greenback cutthroat trout can start reproducing in the wild. That nativized group of fish demonstrates there is enough diverse genetic material in the populations to sustain healthy reproduction. And the environmentalists are excited.
“This is a tremendous example of CPW fulfilling its mission. I am so proud of all … who helped achieve this milestone of naturally reproducing greenback cutthroat trout,” Heather Dugan, CPW Acting Director, was quoted in Colorado Outdoors Magazine.
How Much did Environmentalism Actually Contribute?
The governor and various members of the collective effort to reintroduce the fish quickly credited their efforts when the news broke. Gov Polis issued congratulations to them in a press release: “CPW’s staff and our partner agencies have worked for more than a decade to restore this beloved state fish, and today’s news truly highlights the success of the work.”
In science, connecting the dots between strict environmental regulations and species recovery can be fraught, as the periodical Environmental International shows. While only one source, it is a 50-page study, in the abstract, it says:
“More than half of the species [in the Endangered Species Act] which are considered to have reached 75% or more of their recovery objectives have reached that point for reasons other than the successful implementation of the ESA.” (Not surprisingly, the left-wing Center for American Democracy site has claimed–using one unavailable reference–that the three authors worked for an anti-environmentalist group.)
These Efforts to Restore the Colorado State Fish Had Problems
The fish hatchery has been a practice in conservation since the 1800s. However, the practices used by teams repopulating the different Colorado watersheds don’t sound intuitive, per se.
The methods they used were to shock the Bear Creek greenbacks and extract reproductive matter. To the layperson, it sounds like introducing physical trauma and artificial breeding activities among the same brood of a small surviving school.
Additionally, there were earlier environmentalist efforts to restock this native trout. And there was an embarrassing discovery in 2007. Over what was then a 19-year effort, five of nine fish subspecies were the wrong type of trout. This was a surprisingly costly mistake as apparently other captive-bred trout can mostly survive the unavoidable inbreeding of captivity. But for these particular greenback cutthroat trout, around four out of five do not.
Does Development Equal Destruction and Can Environmentalism be Interference?
Despite the panicked headlines that the Bear Creek fish populations have worsened, the reason is unclear. There appear to be only two big changes to habitat. 1) Intense isolation through legal or policy means and 2) Biologists using these fish as breed stock. And the attention now has moved to Herman Gulch.
There are many factors that contribute to a change in the population of any organism. Here’s was is known?
- A fish once believed to be almost extinct was found near intensive human development. It was thriving naturally outside its original habitat nearly a century after it virtually disappeared.
- Various isolation measures were quickly placed in and around the area the fish were found. Motorcycles were banned and there were efforts to close and reroute hiking trails.
- Environmentalists used electric prods to shock the fish, which they then harvested for reproductive material to be used in hatchery breeding.
- Within eight years, populations of reproductive-age fish in this now isolated (except from environmentalists) habitat dropped; possibly as much as 80%.
- According to the official agency in charge of fish and wildlife in Colorado, the decline’s cause was not a disease or water temperature, nor was it only sediment from dust and sand kicked up by humans or their vehicles.
What’s known for sure is that until 2012, the fish in Bear Creek were thriving amidst a near and very deliberate human presence. What else had changed?
